The complaint states that Ascendant Copper Corporation (ACC) has not disclosed material information to the public and potential shareholders concerning its Junin project, including information on: 1) pending legal actions; 2) a land ownership dispute; and 3) intense opposition from local representatives and government officials to the potential forced relocation of four communities and the proposed mining activities generally.
The complaint also raises concerns about whether ACC has: 1) disclosed reliable exploration data; 2) engaged in improper political activities to seek an exemption to an environmental regulatory framework; 3) violated the law for failing to obtain authorization from officials and local communities to conduct exploratory activities; and 4) addressed allegations of human rights abuses that have been leveled by a prominent Ecuadorian human rights organization.
Relevant OECD Guidelines
- Version 2000 Chapter I
- Version 2000 Chapter I Paragraph I.7
- Version 2000 Chapter II
- Version 2000 Chapter II Paragraph II.10
- Version 2000 Chapter II Paragraph II.2
- Version 2000 Chapter II Paragraph II.5
- Version 2000 Chapter III
- Version 2000 Chapter III Paragraph III.1
- Version 2000 Chapter III Paragraph III.4 Subparagraph III.4.E
- Version 2000 Chapter III Paragraph III.4 Subparagraph III.4.F
- Version 2000 Chapter III Paragraph III.5 Subparagraph III.5.C
- Version 2000 Chapter V
- Version 2000 Chapter V Paragraph V.2 Subparagraph V.2.A
- Version 2000 Chapter V Paragraph V.2 Subparagraph V.2.B
After agreeing to facilitate a meeting in Ecuador, the Canadian NCP insisted that a meeting with community leaders, NGOs and the company be confidential. However, the complainants feared that a confidential meeting would exacerbate the already tense situation if community representatives were prohibited from reporting to community members. The complainants emphasised that transparency is essential in order to maintain trust. However, the NCP unilaterally rejected the request for greater transparency, including refusing to ask the company if it would be willing to have a transparent dialogue, thereby denying the complainants their procedural rights. Frustrated by the NCP’s refusal to facilitate a transparent, non-confidential dialogue, in a manner consistent with the Procedural Guidance, the environmental organizations decided to formally withdraw the complaint on January 16, 2005. The company has since used the withdrawal of the case to misleadingly claim that the problems have been resolved.